Believing in Deities is a Form of Psychosis

[drfuzzy]

Oh ha!!  LOL!  I may have to go home sick from work.  I actually AGREED with Rik on something!  Oh, the horror!   
Yes, Sikky Rikky, you're right!!!  It's ALL talking and ALL bullcrap!  I can't PROVE Juheebus Crappy Crisp wasn't resurrected, and you can't PROVE he was.

Actually I don't have to prove anything because I never claimed that Jesus was resurrected although I believe that he was.
Believe is not a claim.
You on the contrary claimed something that you can not back up with any evidence but considering that you admit your mistake then fair enough.  

My point was that it was highly unlikely that the Romans would have allowed the body to be taken down from the cross.  There are many, many records of Roman crucifixion which clearly state that the bodies were left on the crosses to be ravaged by animals and rot.  The problem with a Google search about crucifixion is that xtian sources have overwhelmed the SEO.  Finding purely historical information that is not linked to religion is a challenge.  To find actual historical documents about the Roman practice of crucifixion, you would need books or scholarly online journals.  These were easier to find and post when I worked in a library!  However, in the few minutes I have (on break) I have found one easy-to-read, decent link:  http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Crucifixion
"The dead body was left up for vultures and other birds to consume.  The goal of Roman crucifixion was not just to kill the criminal, but also to mutilate and dishonor the body of the condemned. In ancient tradition, an honorable death required burial; leaving a body on the cross, so as to mutilate it and prevent its burial, was a grave dishonor." 
The Romans left the bodies up as a warning - a crowd control measure.  Some exceptions to the rule did happen, but it's highly unlikely that a barbarian seditionist Jew would have been one of those exceptions.  Can I PROVE he wasn't?  Of course not.  But proper study of history without religious bias has its merits.

[Edwardo Piet]

Believing in deities is only a form of psychosis if the person in question is having a psychotic episode.

Otherwise, believing in deities is just a form of stupidity.

[Astonished]

Believing in deities is only a form of psychosis if the person in question is having a psychotic episode.

Otherwise, believing in deities is just a form of stupidity.

But it's not (and it took me a long time to finally accept that.) Stupidity can't be treated or overcome. But people abandon their faith all the damn time, much more like recovery or treatment of a mental illness or psychotic episode. It makes them say and do absolutely fucking stupid things but they can always look back in retrospect and agree that it was stupid and would never do it again.

[Little Rik]

Believing in deities is only a form of psychosis if the person in question is having a psychotic episode.

Otherwise, believing in deities is just a form of stupidity.

A deity like God can also be your teacher if you are ready and willing to learn.
Who else can teach you the way to climb to the very top of human existence other than someone who is already there?
Would you call stupid your Uni. teacher or the black belt in the martial arts?

I guess you never thought about that Ham, did you?  

[Little Rik]

Actually I don't have to prove anything because I never claimed that Jesus was resurrected although I believe that he was.
Believe is not a claim.
You on the contrary claimed something that you can not back up with any evidence but considering that you admit your mistake then fair enough.  

My point was that it was highly unlikely that the Romans would have allowed the body to be taken down from the cross.  There are many, many records of Roman crucifixion which clearly state that the bodies were left on the crosses to be ravaged by animals and rot.  The problem with a Google search about crucifixion is that xtian sources have overwhelmed the SEO.  Finding purely historical information that is not linked to religion is a challenge.  To find actual historical documents about the Roman practice of crucifixion, you would need books or scholarly online journals.  These were easier to find and post when I worked in a library!  However, in the few minutes I have (on break) I have found one easy-to-read, decent link:  http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Crucifixion
"The dead body was left up for vultures and other birds to consume.  The goal of Roman crucifixion was not just to kill the criminal, but also to mutilate and dishonor the body of the condemned. In ancient tradition, an honorable death required burial; leaving a body on the cross, so as to mutilate it and prevent its burial, was a grave dishonor." 
The Romans left the bodies up as a warning - a crowd control measure.  Some exceptions to the rule did happen, but it's highly unlikely that a barbarian seditionist Jew would have been one of those exceptions.  Can I PROVE he wasn't?  Of course not.  But proper study of history without religious bias has its merits.

We all believe different things and that is ok.
My believe about Jesus is in the ........ The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ, by Levi H. Dowling.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/agjc/index.htm

From chapter 166 on

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/agjc/agjc169.htm

you can see how it all happen (death and crucifixion) according Levi which drew his story from the Akashic Records.


(the Akashic records are a compendium of all human events, thoughts, words, emotions and intent ever to have occurred in the past, present or future)

[drfuzzy]

My point was that it was highly unlikely that the Romans would have allowed the body to be taken down from the cross.  There are many, many records of Roman crucifixion which clearly state that the bodies were left on the crosses to be ravaged by animals and rot.  The problem with a Google search about crucifixion is that xtian sources have overwhelmed the SEO.  Finding purely historical information that is not linked to religion is a challenge.  To find actual historical documents about the Roman practice of crucifixion, you would need books or scholarly online journals.  These were easier to find and post when I worked in a library!  However, in the few minutes I have (on break) I have found one easy-to-read, decent link:  http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Crucifixion
"The dead body was left up for vultures and other birds to consume.  The goal of Roman crucifixion was not just to kill the criminal, but also to mutilate and dishonor the body of the condemned. In ancient tradition, an honorable death required burial; leaving a body on the cross, so as to mutilate it and prevent its burial, was a grave dishonor." 
The Romans left the bodies up as a warning - a crowd control measure.  Some exceptions to the rule did happen, but it's highly unlikely that a barbarian seditionist Jew would have been one of those exceptions.  Can I PROVE he wasn't?  Of course not.  But proper study of history without religious bias has its merits.

We all believe different things and that is ok.
My believe about Jesus is in the ........ The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ, by Levi H. Dowling.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/agjc/index.htm

From chapter 166 on

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/agjc/agjc169.htm

you can see how it all happen (death and crucifixion) according Levi which drew his story from the Akashic Records.


(the Akashic records are a compendium of all human events, thoughts, words, emotions and intent ever to have occurred in the past, present or future)

     Wow.  See, this is why we will probably never be able to communicate.  I give you historical research, and you come back with Theosophical (Blavatsky, Cayce, Steiner, Dowling, etc.) Neo-Pagan Spiritualist woo.   The Akashic "records" have never been scientifically proved to exist - although testing would be SO very easy.  Many years ago, when I knew that I could not accept the xtian belief system, the idea of Akashic records was intriguing.  But I quickly realized that accepting this woo would just be trading one ridiculous fantasy for another.  I have chosen to base my worldview on scientific fact.  Fantasies are for escapist entertainment only.

[Little Rik]

We all believe different things and that is ok.
My believe about Jesus is in the ........ The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ, by Levi H. Dowling.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/agjc/index.htm

From chapter 166 on

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/agjc/agjc169.htm

you can see how it all happen (death and crucifixion) according Levi which drew his story from the Akashic Records.


(the Akashic records are a compendium of all human events, thoughts, words, emotions and intent ever to have occurred in the past, present or future)

     Wow.  See, this is why we will probably never be able to communicate.  I give you historical research, and you come back with Theosophical (Blavatsky, Cayce, Steiner, Dowling, etc.) Neo-Pagan Spiritualist woo.   The Akashic "records" have never been scientifically proved to exist - although testing would be SO very easy.  Many years ago, when I knew that I could not accept the xtian belief system, the idea of Akashic records was intriguing.  But I quickly realized that accepting this woo would just be trading one ridiculous fantasy for another.  I have chosen to base my worldview on scientific fact.  Fantasies are for escapist entertainment only.

1) There is no evidence that the Akashic record is a fantasy.
Of course there is also no evidence that it is true but the story about Jesus make sense.
2) Your so called historical research doesn't say that Jesus was left on the cross to rot nor that he was nor resurrected.
It has absolutely nothing to do with scientific facts.
It is just the opinion of someone which lacks of any evidence and by the way the author quite often takes from the Gospels or the new Testament or the Deuteronomy.

In other words the best thing to follow is what make sense and to me the akashic record make a lot of sense.

[Crossless2.0]

     Wow.  See, this is why we will probably never be able to communicate.  I give you historical research, and you come back with Theosophical (Blavatsky, Cayce, Steiner, Dowling, etc.) Neo-Pagan Spiritualist woo.   The Akashic "records" have never been scientifically proved to exist - although testing would be SO very easy.  Many years ago, when I knew that I could not accept the xtian belief system, the idea of Akashic records was intriguing.  But I quickly realized that accepting this woo would just be trading one ridiculous fantasy for another.  I have chosen to base my worldview on scientific fact.  Fantasies are for escapist entertainment only.

1) There is no evidence that the Akashic record is a fantasy.
Of course there is also no evidence that it is true but the story about Jesus make sense.
2) Your so called historical research doesn't say that Jesus was left on the cross to rot nor that he was nor resurrected.
It has absolutely nothing to do with scientific facts.
It is just the opinion of someone which lacks of any evidence and by the way the author quite often takes from the Gospels or the new Testament or the Deuteronomy.

In other words the best thing to follow is what make sense and to me the akashic record make a lot of sense.

Regarding "the story about Jesus makes sense", from the Wikipedia article on your woo gospel:

"In his 1931 book, Strange New Gospels, the biblical scholar Edgar J. Goodspeed noted:
"Augustus Caesar reigned and Herod Antipas was ruler in Jerusalem." This opening sentence of the new gospel does not encourage any very high hopes as to its historical value. It is generally accepted that Antipas never rules in Jerusalem but in Galilee. Of course Dowling means Herod the Great."[2]

• Also, that Dowling has borrowed a number of details from the aprocryphal Gospel of James, a work that may not be older than the fifth century, such as details about the childhood of Mary and her marriage to Joseph, the birth of Jesus in a cave, and the account of the death of Zacharias which differs from the account given by Origen and other early Fathers.
  
• Goodspeed notes that the many ancient religions and philosophies taught, in many different countries, to young Jesus in the book seem "colored by Christian Science."
  

Eric Pement has pointed out difficulties in Dowling's text:

• The book depicts Jesus as visiting the cities of Lahore, India (pre-Partition in India, now in Pakistan), Shri Jagannath in the temple at Puri in Odisha, India, and Persepolis in Persia. Only the temple at Puri existed at that period; Lahore did not exist during the period in question, and Persepolis had already been destroyed by Alexander the Great.[3] The book asserts Jesus had remained in the Jagannātha Temple of Puri for four years, preaching among the downtrodden and low caste people.
  
• Dowling and Edgar Cayce both claimed to have produced an account of the life of Jesus through the transcription of the akashic records, but there are significant differences between their accounts.[3]
  
• Dowling claimed that Jesus knew Meng-tse of Lhasa, Tibet but Meng-tse lived 300 years before Jesus' time.[3]
  

Supporters of Dowling argue that within theosophical thought, figures such as Meng-Tse, Matheno, Miriam, Moses, Elijah and Vidyapati exist in an ascended state. As such, they communicated with Jesus after they had passed on from earthly existence."

So . . . this is what passes for evidence in your sad, addled mind, Rik?

[Nay_Sayer]

1) There is no evidence that the Akashic record is a fantasy.
Of course there is also no evidence that it is true but the story about Jesus make sense.
2) Your so called historical research doesn't say that Jesus was left on the cross to rot nor that he was nor resurrected.
It has absolutely nothing to do with scientific facts.
It is just the opinion of someone which lacks of any evidence and by the way the author quite often takes from the Gospels or the new Testament or the Deuteronomy.

In other words the best thing to follow is what make sense and to me the akashic record make a lot of sense.

Regarding "the story about Jesus makes sense", from the Wikipedia article on your woo gospel:

"In his 1931 book, Strange New Gospels, the biblical scholar Edgar J. Goodspeed noted:
"Augustus Caesar reigned and Herod Antipas was ruler in Jerusalem." This opening sentence of the new gospel does not encourage any very high hopes as to its historical value. It is generally accepted that Antipas never rules in Jerusalem but in Galilee. Of course Dowling means Herod the Great."[2]

• Also, that Dowling has borrowed a number of details from the aprocryphal Gospel of James, a work that may not be older than the fifth century, such as details about the childhood of Mary and her marriage to Joseph, the birth of Jesus in a cave, and the account of the death of Zacharias which differs from the account given by Origen and other early Fathers.
  
• Goodspeed notes that the many ancient religions and philosophies taught, in many different countries, to young Jesus in the book seem "colored by Christian Science."
  

Eric Pement has pointed out difficulties in Dowling's text:

• The book depicts Jesus as visiting the cities of Lahore, India (pre-Partition in India, now in Pakistan), Shri Jagannath in the temple at Puri in Odisha, India, and Persepolis in Persia. Only the temple at Puri existed at that period; Lahore did not exist during the period in question, and Persepolis had already been destroyed by Alexander the Great.[3] The book asserts Jesus had remained in the Jagannātha Temple of Puri for four years, preaching among the downtrodden and low caste people.
  
• Dowling and Edgar Cayce both claimed to have produced an account of the life of Jesus through the transcription of the akashic records, but there are significant differences between their accounts.[3]
  
• Dowling claimed that Jesus knew Meng-tse of Lhasa, Tibet but Meng-tse lived 300 years before Jesus' time.[3]
  

Supporters of Dowling argue that within theosophical thought, figures such as Meng-Tse, Matheno, Miriam, Moses, Elijah and Vidyapati exist in an ascended state. As such, they communicated with Jesus after they had passed on from earthly existence."

So . . . this is what passes for evidence in your sad, addled mind, Rik?

You assume Rik has ever let evidence ever seep into whats left of his gray matter.

[drfuzzy]

---

1) There is no evidence that the Akashic record is a fantasy.
Of course there is also no evidence that it is true but the story about Jesus make sense.
2) Your so called historical research doesn't say that Jesus was left on the cross to rot nor that he was nor resurrected.
It has absolutely nothing to do with scientific facts.
It is just the opinion of someone which lacks of any evidence and by the way the author quite often takes from the Gospels or the new Testament or the Deuteronomy.

In other words the best thing to follow is what make sense and to me the akashic record make a lot of sense.

---

Regarding "the story about Jesus makes sense", from the Wikipedia article on your woo gospel:

"In his 1931 book, Strange New Gospels, the biblical scholar Edgar J. Goodspeed noted:
"Augustus Caesar reigned and Herod Antipas was ruler in Jerusalem." This opening sentence of the new gospel does not encourage any very high hopes as to its historical value. It is generally accepted that Antipas never rules in Jerusalem but in Galilee. Of course Dowling means Herod the Great."[2]

• Also, that Dowling has borrowed a number of details from the aprocryphal Gospel of James, a work that may not be older than the fifth century, such as details about the childhood of Mary and her marriage to Joseph, the birth of Jesus in a cave, and the account of the death of Zacharias which differs from the account given by Origen and other early Fathers.
  
• Goodspeed notes that the many ancient religions and philosophies taught, in many different countries, to young Jesus in the book seem "colored by Christian Science."
  

Eric Pement has pointed out difficulties in Dowling's text:

• The book depicts Jesus as visiting the cities of Lahore, India (pre-Partition in India, now in Pakistan), Shri Jagannath in the temple at Puri in Odisha, India, and Persepolis in Persia. Only the temple at Puri existed at that period; Lahore did not exist during the period in question, and Persepolis had already been destroyed by Alexander the Great.[3] The book asserts Jesus had remained in the Jagannātha Temple of Puri for four years, preaching among the downtrodden and low caste people.
  
• Dowling and Edgar Cayce both claimed to have produced an account of the life of Jesus through the transcription of the akashic records, but there are significant differences between their accounts.[3]
  
• Dowling claimed that Jesus knew Meng-tse of Lhasa, Tibet but Meng-tse lived 300 years before Jesus' time.[3]
  

Supporters of Dowling argue that within theosophical thought, figures such as Meng-Tse, Matheno, Miriam, Moses, Elijah and Vidyapati exist in an ascended state. As such, they communicated with Jesus after they had passed on from earthly existence."

So . . . this is what passes for evidence in your sad, addled mind, Rik?

   I was going to take some time at lunch to research Dowling, Crossless - - but I don't think I could have done THIS well.  Beautiful.  Brilliant.  Thank you.  Don't you just love it when various versions of woo make claims about something happening, in a place that did not exist at that time?  Such as, oh, the town of Nazareth - which was founded between 70 and 135 CE?